Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Public Services Card: Some still forced to comply

offsite link Catholic Church: Dark influence still active Anthony

offsite link Tom Parlon launches new career in comedy Anthony

offsite link Presumption of innocence does not universally apply in Ireland Anthony

offsite link The poor standard of Irish political journalism Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Kurdish Radicals Try To Burn Russian-Turkish Patrol Wed Nov 20, 2019 01:36 | Scott
Syrian War Report ? November 19, 2019: Kurdish Radicals Try To Burn Russian-Turkish Patrol Kurdish provocateurs have tried to burn a Typhoon MRAP vehicle of the Russian Military Police and

offsite link Poll Shows Trump?s Israel Policy Is Opposed Even By Republicans Tue Nov 19, 2019 18:36 | The Saker
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog On Monday, November 18th, Reuters headlined ?U.S. backs Israel on settlements, angering Palestinians and clouding peace process? and reported that, ?The United States

offsite link China, Bolivia and Venezuela are proof that social democracy cannot thrive in the global capitalist ... Tue Nov 19, 2019 08:00 | The Saker
By Jeff J. Brown for The Saker Blog Crosslinked with: https://chinarising.puntopr... https://youtu.be/ngJxuqdZ8SI https://soundcloud.com/44-d... Pictured above: The US orchestrated coup in Bolivia is being led by White supremist, fascist, Christian fundamentalists,

offsite link Message for my Latin American friends (in the form of a song) UPDATED 2x! Tue Nov 19, 2019 01:12 | The Saker
Dear friends, I have to admit that I am absolutely heartbroken at the news coming out of Latin America.  Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Bolivia –

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2019/11/18 ? Open Thread Mon Nov 18, 2019 23:00 | Herb Swanson
2019/11/18 23:00:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

The Saker >>

Secular Reasons for 'No' in Marriage Referendum

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis author Wednesday April 08, 2015 16:27author by rojosauthor email saoririseoir at gmail dot com Report this post to the editors

Here are some secular reasons to vote No in the upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage.

Whatever one personally thinks of marriage, just like religion, it should be consigned to the private sphere: I). on philosophical grounds; and ii). because State support for marriage directly contributes to inequality of the treatment of families, and directly discriminates against unmarried parents and their children - regardless of whether the parents are 'straight' or same-sex.

I am not alone in thinking that all marriage is an unnecessary fetish which is the legacy of religious ritual. Where private ceremonies are concerned, it is none of my business; and if invited, I can go along for the party and wish the couple well (within our closed circle of wedding-invitees, or a personal announcement in Social Media etc.). However, as a citizen, the State’s involvement in marriage is my business; and I object on two grounds:

Firstly, State involvement with marriage custom is as archaic as mentions of god in the Constitution or Statute books of any State. If there were to be a referendum on extending the definition of ‘god’ in the Constitution to include all deities, I, as an atheist, would be conscience-bound to vote No, because no god has any place in a Constitution. Concomitantly, when an extension of the legitimisation of marriage is proposed, I am also duty-bound to vote No – because I am against State involvement in marriage.

Despite my personal opinion on marriage, I cannot, and do not, have objections to what people wish to do in their own private ceremonies; or in their campaigns within respective cultural or religious groups to achieve equality within those contexts (including equal access to religious rites). But the State has no business in legislating for, or interfering in, the intimate relationships of consenting adults.

The second reason, is that, because the State’s involvement with marriage is intrinsically bound up with its definitions and redefinitions of the family, it is necessarily directly discriminatory against unmarried families. The following examples are based on the traditional unmarried vs. married family models, for illustrative purposes; but if the referendum is carried, the institutionalised discriminatory divide will merely be maintained across all family types (straight and gay parents alike).

a). Current state involvement with marriage is discriminatory against unmarried fathers, because even after the new family legislation, they do not have automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, or even access to their children. Conversely, children do not have automatic rights of access to their unmarried fathers. This state of affairs is absurd, and deeply sexist (i.e., discriminatory on grounds of gender).

Marriage, of course, guarantees automatic rights of guardianship, joint custody, and access, to both married partners (whether or not both of them happen to be the biological parents).

Whether or not the referendum is passed, a complete stranger can come along and marry the ‘primary’ parent, and regardless of the wishes of the excluded parent (who may be the biological parent), have all of those automatic rights; and the children have no say.

b). unmarried primary parents are expected to do impossible time-juggling with the back-to-work pressure from when the youngest child turns seven.

c). The State discourages unmarried fathers from having an active family life – thus perpetuating the stereotype of the feckless unmarried father. There should be no difference between how a married or unmarried family is treated.

d). currently, parents need to be married for children to have automatic rights of inheritance.

The welfare of children must be looked to outside of the institution of marriage, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against the 33% of children born outside wedlock in this country. If Britain and France are ahead of us in social trends, we can expect even more children outside of marriage (UK 48%, and France 52%). We need to work with this social fact, and not against it by bestowing benefits on those who marry.

This country has a legacy of putting unmarried families at a disadvantage – a shameful legacy which should be reversed immediately and completely. This referendum, if not a red herring, is reinforcing this legacy, as well as legitimising and strengthening a discriminatory, unhealthy, and decaying institution.

In sum, the State should treat all children and families equally, and stop discriminating against them on the grounds of marriage. Like religion, any marriage is a personal and private matter which does not belong in a modern or postmodern, secular Civic Sphere. The proposal masks the real inequalities in an increasing number of families, resulting from the State’s heavy support for an archaic fetish; and encouraging such irrational support should be seen in times to come, as a retrograde statement by the Irish electorate.

 #   Title   Author   Date 
   Sorry, but this appears disingenous     Mike Novack    Wed Apr 08, 2015 23:06 
   Why governments need to bother     single non-parent    Thu Apr 09, 2015 09:28 
   we are better off voting yes     fred    Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:13 
   Responses     rojos    Thu Apr 09, 2015 19:44 
   i apologise     fred    Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:57 
   What did Marx say about the Holy Family?     Gazer    Fri Apr 10, 2015 16:31 
   karl marx never worked and was a financial parasite..     rowe_the_transexual    Fri Apr 10, 2015 21:21 
   Vote "YES".     Rational Ecologist    Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:22 
   segregation of couples is inevitable     fred    Mon Apr 13, 2015 20:31 
 10   A radical case for a 'yes' vote     Laurence    Tue Apr 14, 2015 17:21 
 11   anthropologists know about three marriage models     single non-parent    Tue Apr 14, 2015 22:46 
 12   The Holy Family link     Nathan    Tue Apr 14, 2015 23:24 


Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2019 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy